Robert Slager wrote:

The charges were dismissed on Wednesday after the court found no factual basis for the allegation, acording [sp] to Sauvageau.

Slager appears to believe he can lie with impunity as long as he puts the words in Sauvageau's foul mouth.

So is there no way of verifying whether the statement in the Bobserver (now that eliz is gone) is true or not?  I've never been arrested, nor do I even know anyone who has been arrested, so I don't know how these things work.

But how can Brucie get away with saying the chief has a mental illness?  Isn't that slander?  And can ragman write about a mental illness without verifying the facts?  I thought there already was a law suit pending against the rag.... I just wish if there were more information about the dismissal, it will be printed in the papers.

gray area mixie.  i looked into it a little and i guess there are some things that cannot be quantified. like calling someone a jerk.  there is no quantifying test or definitive thing that makes someone a jerk.

maybe he thinks that this is the case here, however, i believe that mental illness is something that can be quantified by an expert witness and where the allegation of mental illness here  may lead to job loss or performance effectiveness this may be actionable.

I'm sure his wife drove him to the registry and he paid what he owed there too.

billw wrote:

commonsense wrote:

Of course you're not going to sue the town, YOUR LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED!

Wait a second. He's popped for driving on a suspended, pays a fine and now his driving privileges are restored? I have a hard time swallowing this.

Yes, that is usually how it works for a relatively minor offense. It has nothing to do with his position as a selectman. The average Joe usually recieves the same treatment, unless they have an outrageous driving record.

However, the spin the observer put on this story by claiming the charges were dismissed because of no factual basis for the charge is completely irresponsible and false. Like someone else mentioned in a previous message. At his arraignment he was likely given the option of making payment and having the case dismissed. He made the smart choice and the case was dismissed. Charges are dismissed all the time, even for more serious offenses. It does not mean that the defendant is not guilty. It is just an easy way for the court to clear their caseload.

Mr. Slager, you get bashed all the time and for good reason. Please, please, please, do some research about how things work, before you write something that makes you look stupid and ignorant. I really feel bad for you sometimes.

Anyone read the "A Dark Road in Wareham" by Slager yet? Funny stuff!!!

In his artice Slager claims that in three years of reading police logs he has never seen anyone that was arrested for operating after license suspension. Better go read those logs again Mr. Slager. A Police Officer can summons the operator, or he can arrest him. That is a long-standing police practice, everywhere, not just in Wareham, called "officer discretion". 

As for Officer Simmons, you can try to dig up dirt or political connections Mr. Slager, but you won't find any. He is a hard-working, young, and motivated Police Officer. Like several other officers hired in the last few years, he is not originally from Wareham, and has no connections to anyone in town. He is squeaky clean.

Another thing about Slager's dark road article. In it Bruce rants about how the police were not at his arraignment. The police don't go to the arraignment Bruce! Their presence is not required until the trial phase. The overtime costs for police would be through the roof if they went to every arraignment.

As for the police report not being in court. I'm sure it was there. The court clerk probably had it somewhere or they would not have proceeded until they had it. You may not have seen it Bruce, but it was there. When you get your copy, please be sure to make a copy for Mr. Slager. He want to go through it with a fine tooth comb and try to find anything remotely suspicious so he can put his own spin on the police report.

Ragman claimed a while back that he did not have any contact with Brucie other than as Brucie's role as a selectman.  It seems strange that Brucie would call ragman before he even took the time to gain emotional control to tell his tale of woe...and speaking of woe, it was a woefully sad week for the ragman.  he had a cold.  snif...snif...